Anderson,Bennie v. City of Knoxville Department of Recreation

FILED
Jan 05, 2026
11:32 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Bennie Anderson Docket No. 2022-03-0885

v. State File No. 41632-2022

City of Knoxville Department of
Recreation

Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Brian K. Addington, Judge

Affirmed and Remanded

In this appeal, the employee sustained injuries after slipping and falling from his truck at
work. The employer accepted the compensability of the accident and provided medical
care and temporary disability benefits for his work injuries. Following a course of
conservative medical treatment, authorized treating providers placed the employee at
maximum medical improvement, assigned impairment ratings for his shoulder, neck, and
back, and released him to return to work. The employee was not satisfied with the
treatment provided and sought unauthorized medical care, including treatment for
gastroparesis, high blood pressure, seizures, and a hernia, for which he underwent surgical
repair. Thereafter, the employee requested additional medical and temporary disability
benefits for these conditions. In response, the employer asserted: (1) it had provided all
medical treatment reasonably necessitated by the work accident; (2) the conditions for
which the employee sought treatment were not causally related to the work accident; and
(3) the employee was not entitled to additional temporary disability benefits because he
had been placed at maximum medical improvement by his authorized physicians.
Following an expedited hearing, the trial court determined the employee was unlikely to
prevail at trial in proving his entitlement to additional medical treatment or temporary
disability benefits, and the employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record,
we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

Judge Pele I. Godkin delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding Judge
Timothy W. Conner and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined.

Bennie Anderson, Knoxville, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

1
Jim Johnson, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, City of Knoxville
Department of Recreation

Memorandum Opinion 1

Bennie Anderson (“Employee”) was employed as a knuckle boom truck driver for
the City of Knoxville Department of Recreation (“Employer”). On June 6, 2022, Employee
slipped and fell from a truck, landing on his feet before falling to the ground. Employee
reported the incident to Employer and noted that he experienced pain in his head, shoulders,
neck, and mid-section. Employer authorized workers’ compensation benefits, and
Employee was initially seen by Katy Tillery, NP, at The Center – Premise Health (“The
Center”), Employer’s on-site medical services provider, before being referred to a
specialist. Employee then saw Dr. Daniel B. Wells, an orthopedic surgeon with Tennessee
Orthopaedic Alliance, beginning on June 13, 2022. Dr. Wells documented Employee’s
neck and bilateral arm pain. Diagnostic studies revealed no cervical spine stenosis but
showed “some degenerative changes” with “no myelomalacia present.” Dr. Wells
prescribed a course of physical therapy and assigned light duty restrictions. During a
follow-up visit, Employee reported difficulty performing work tasks and stated that his
symptoms were worse with physical therapy. Employee also suggested to Dr. Wells that
he might be “missing something” because of his ongoing symptoms. In response, Dr.
Wells noted he was “unclear what was going on with [Employee]” since his symptoms
seemed to be different from what he reported previously, his MRI showed “no high-grade
cervical stenosis and no myelomalacia,” and, during his physical examination, Dr. Wells
did not “appreciate any swelling in his bilateral upper extremities.” Dr. Wells referred
Employee to his colleague, Dr. Patrick M. Bolt, an orthopedic surgeon, to determine if
there was something he missed but noted that he would see Employee again, if needed.

On June 22, 2022, Employee was evaluated by Dr. John M. Reynolds, IV, also an
orthopedic surgeon with Tennessee Orthopaedic Alliance, for his shoulder symptoms. Dr.
Reynolds recorded Employee’s complaints of neck pain radiating into both shoulders and
noted Employee was seeing Dr. Wells for his cervical spine. An MRI of the right shoulder
revealed “tendinopathy with no significant rotator cuff tear and mild AC joint arthrosis.”
The left shoulder MRI revealed “rotator cuff tendinopathy with a very small low-grade
partial articular sided tear of the distal supraspinatus, but no evidence of any acute or full-
thickness or high-grade tear.” AC arthrosis was also noted. Dr. Reynolds determined there
was “no evidence of any surgical pathology in either shoulder,” placed Employee at
maximum medical improvement (“MMI”), and released him to full duty work with no
permanent impairment from the perspective of his shoulder condition.

Dr. Bolt evaluated Employee on August 29, 2022, and noted that he had previously
been seen by his colleagues, Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wells. Dr. Bolt believed that

1
This decision is being filed pursuant to Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2023).
2
Employee’s pain was “out of proportion” with diagnostic findings. He recorded that the
“MRI of the cervical spine reveals cervical degenerative changes [at] C2-C5 without
significant neural impingement at any level.” In addition, the “MRI of the right shoulder
reveals supraspinatus and mild AC joint osteoarthritis without tear.” Dr. Bolt ordered an
MRI of Employee’s thoracic and lumbar spine “to rule out other causes of discomfort” and
a nerve conduction study of Employee’s upper extremities. Results of that MRI were
unremarkable, and Dr. Bolt advised Employee that he “would not recommend surgical
intervention or injection therapy with the absence of a specific finding on imaging.” 2 He
prescribed physical therapy, but, after completing that treatment, Employee reported
ongoing pain in the neck and low back with minimal relief. Thereafter, Dr. Bolt referred
Employee for a functional capacity evaluation (“FCE”). Dr. Bolt reviewed the FCE results
with Employee and explained that it indicated Employee was “significantly self-limiting
and consequently, no permanent restrictions can be recommended.” Dr. Bolt reiterated he
was only treating Employee’s neck and back conditions and, thus, had “nothing further to
offer [Employee]” regarding his “non-musculoskeletal/orthopedic complaints” related to
the shoulder symptomology. On January 23, 2023, Dr. Bolt placed Employee at MMI and
released him from his care with no permanent work restrictions. Dr. Bolt assigned an
impairment rating of 4% to the whole body for the cervical spine condition.

On September 18, 2023, Employee obtained a second opinion from Dr. Jay Jolley
at Southeastern Spine in Chattanooga. 3 Following that examination, Dr. Jolley completed
a final medical report reflecting a diagnosis of cervical spondylosis, “[m]ulti-focal
complaints,” and a cervical sprain. He agreed with Dr. Bolt’s recommendation against
surgical intervention and concluded that Employee had reached MMI, was able to return
to full duty work without restrictions, and retained no permanent impairment.

Employee was also seen by Dr. D. Macolm Spica, Ph.D., who Employer authorized
to perform a neuropsychological examination of Employee. Dr. Spica determined that
Employee retained no injury “on a neurobehav[ior]al bas[i]s” as a result of the work
incident and “defer[red] comment regarding [Employee’s] additional physical conditions
(e.g., pain, numbness, etc.) to appropriate medical resources.”

Thereafter, Employer continued to authorize medical treatment related to the work
incident; however, Employee expressed his dissatisfaction with the medical care Employer
had provided to date. As a result, he sought unauthorized treatment, including emergent

2
In October 2022, Employee was called by Dr. Desiree Roa, a provider at The Center, to discuss the results
of a CT head and neck scan performed on October 18, 2022. Dr. Roa explained that Employee’s findings
were “negative for any acute findings to explain his symptoms.” During this call, she also addressed a
negative CT of Employee’s head that he chose to obtain on his own at an emergency department in Johnson
City on October 16, 2022.
3
The record is silent as to whether the second opinion was authorized by Employer or whether Employee
obtained the second opinion on his own.
3
care. In his written request for additional medical and disability benefits, Employee
asserted that he “hurts all over” and did not have these issues prior to his injury. In
response, Employer contended it had furnished appropriate treatment for all conditions that
medical providers determined were primarily related to the work accident. Further,
Employer argued that Employee is not entitled to additional temporary disability benefits
because he was placed at MMI for all work-related conditions.

Following an expedited hearing, the trial court concluded that Employee failed to
offer evidence from a medical expert supporting the need for additional medical treatment
arising primarily from his work injuries. The court emphasized that Employee’s testimony,
in and of itself, is insufficient to show that his conditions were primarily caused by the
work incident. Ultimately, the court also found Employee failed to show a likelihood of
prevailing at trial in proving his entitlement to additional temporary disability benefits
because he had been placed at MMI by his authorized treating physicians for all conditions
primarily related to the work incident. Employee has appealed.

In his notice of appeal, Employee argues the trial court’s decision was “incorrect
based on the evidence” and asserts it “didn’t let me give my medical testimony.”
Employee filed an “Appeal Writing Checklist” consisting of what appears to be reproduced
portions of medical records and filings, with personal comments interspersed throughout.
Employee submits the trial court showed “favoritism” toward Employer, and he “didn’t get
a chance to show my medical fact to represent my medical fact not opinions.”

However, no transcript of the hearing or statement of the evidence was filed in
conjunction with this appeal. “Without a transcript or a statement of the evidence, the
appellate court cannot know what evidence was presented to the trial court, and there is no
means by which we can evaluate the appellant’s assertion that the evidence did not support
the trial court’s decision.” Britt v. Chambers, No. W2006-00061-COA-R3-CV, 2007
Tenn. App. LEXIS 38, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2007). Moreover, although Employee
filed a brief, it fails to provide any “argument in support of . . . [his] contention” on appeal.
Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010)
(further stating “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct
a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her”). “In short, an incomplete appellate record
is fatal to an appeal, and a reviewing court must conclusively presume that the evidence
presented supported the facts as found by the trial court.” Payne v. D & D Electric, No.
2014-01-0023, 2014 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.
App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

When an appellant fails to offer substantive arguments on appeal, an appellate
court’s “ability to conduct meaningful appellate review is significantly hampered.”
Holmes v. Ellis Watkins d/b/a Watkins Lawn Care, No. 2017-08-0504, 2018 TN Wrk.
Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 7, at *3-4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Feb. 13, 2018).
Moreover, “where a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contention

4
or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived.” Sneed, 301 S.W.3d at 615.
It is not our role to search the record for possible errors or to formulate a party’s legal
arguments where that party has provided no meaningful argument or authority to support
its position. Cosey v. Jarden Corp., No. 2017-01-0053, 2019 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.
LEXIS 3, at *8 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2019). As our appellate courts
have explained, were we to search the record for possible errors and raise issues and
arguments for Employee, we would be acting as her counsel, which the law prohibits. See,
e.g., Webb v. Sherrell, No. E2013-02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at
*5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015) (stating “we cannot write [a party’s] brief for [them],
and we are not able to create arguments or issues where none otherwise are set forth”).

In short, Employee has offered nothing on appeal to indicate the trial court erred in
denying his request for additional medical or disability benefits at this stage of the case.
An employee’s opinion about the medical cause of his or her conditions, without
supporting expert medical proof, is insufficient to support an award of benefits. See Scott
v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, No. 2015-01-0055, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS
24, at *12 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015) (“Employee’s lay testimony
in this case, without corroborative expert testimony, did not constitute adequate evidence
of medical causation.”). Here, multiple authorized physicians evaluated Employee’s
complaints, prescribed treatment, and then placed Employee at MMI with no
recommendations for further treatment. Employee has offered no conflicting expert
medical opinions to date. Consequently, we conclude the record on appeal supports the
trial court’s order.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the
case. Costs on appeal are waived.

5
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Bennie Anderson Docket No. 2022-03-0885

v. State File No. 41632-2022

City of Knoxville Deptartment of
Recreation

Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Brian K. Addington, Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appeals Board’s decision in the referenced case
was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 5th day of
January, 2026.

Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
Bennie Anderson X bkimm1423@aol.com
Jim Johnson X jjohnson@knoxvilletn.gov
Brian K. Addington, Judge X Via Electronic Mail
Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge X Via Electronic Mail
Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of X penny.patterson-shrum@tn.gov
Workers’ Compensation Claims

Olivia Yearwood
Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B
Nashville, TN 37243
Telephone: 615-253-1606
Electronic Mail: WCAppeals.Clerk@tn.gov